Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OM Macro 50 f2 vs 50 f3.5

Subject: Re: [OM] OM Macro 50 f2 vs 50 f3.5
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:18:26 -0800
On 1/14/2011 6:48 PM, AS wrote:
> Comparing the 50mm f2 and f3.5. Is the f2 a 1:1 lens? Are there different 
> variations of f2?

Both "only" go to 1:2 without extension. Oly made the variable 65-116 tube, the 
Auto Bellows and the 80/4 lenses 
optimized for 1:1. Do you think they may have been saying something about using 
the 50mm macros in the 1:1 vicinity?

My own testing with the 50/3.5 show it to be a superb lens at 1:2, sharp, with 
clean edges, flat field, even 
illumination and good corners. At 1:1, it's still a good lens, but clearly less 
so than at 1:2

One of my first posts on this list was a question about the 50 mm lenses, and 
these two specifically. In my enthusiasm, 
I had thoroughly (over) analyzed Gary's lens tests. I had a short off list 
exchange with Gary. I forget the details, but 
I recall him saying that the 50/2 was better wide open than his test/sample 
indicated.

His tests were all at 1:40, so tell us nothing about macro performance.

One thing has changed since the time when these lenses we designed. The 50/3.5 
optimum aperture is f8-11. I imagine the 
50/2 is perhaps f5.6 to 8, although I have no data. The contemporary Tamron 
90/2.8, which focuses directly to 1:1 has an 
optimum aperture of f2.8-4. It's excellent wide open at 1:2 and 1:1.

This is a mixed blessing. For flat copy work, it means more brightness. For 3D 
subjects, it means a trade-off between 
DOF and performance.

Moose


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz